The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Should Follow the Law

The Service claims it is exempt from Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements because critical habitat designations impact only other federal agencies. But this claim is in error. While critical habitat designations do require federal agencies to manage critical habitat, the restrictions of the designations also directly affect small businesses, making designations subject to RFA requirements.

Ninth Circuit: Unelected bureaucrats can do whatever they want, no matter what the law or facts say. See Chevron.

In the 80s, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the Service to move otters to southern California on the condition that it implement protections for the surrounding fishery and the fishermen … ›

What constitutes a “subspecies” under the Endangered Species Act?

When the Service rejected a delisting petition for the coastal California gnatcatcher, it acknowledged that it was not going to define “subspecies,” the very term upon which the denial rests, even while acknowledging that the term enjoys no commonly accepted meaning among scientists. Thus, by not defining that key term, the Service effectively reserved to itself the right to use whatever definition of “subspecies” suits it best at any time. This arbitrary power prevents the regulated public from challenging any “subspecies” designation because the Service can always move the goal posts.

PLF sends dilatory Service notice of a lawsuit threequel

What does it take to get the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to follow the law? For the citizens of Bonner County, Idaho, and members of the Idaho State Snowmobile … ›

PLF petitions for rehearing in Utah prairie dog case

This morning, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc in People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—our challenge to the federal government’s constitutional … ›

PLF to testify at congressional hearing on how ESA burdens development

It is a busy week for PLF’s DC Center. Our Executive Director Todd Gaziano will be speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by Senator Lee (Utah) to announce the release … ›

The best way to protect the environment isn't always obvious

Our friend Brian Seasholes of the Reason Foundation has an article on DailyCaller.com on one of the oft overlooked environmental benefits of fracking: preserving open space as habitat for wildlife. … ›

New Endangered Species Act regulations will improve the statute's implementation

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its proposed regulations to reform the Endangered Species Act petition process. The regulation incorporates several important reforms and is a welcome sign … ›

Should unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have free rein to regulate whatever they please?

PLF argues “no,” in an amicus brief supporting four states, industry groups, and an Indian tribe in their challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) unlawful fracking regulation. It … ›

Brand Logo for the blog page

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Should Follow the Law

The Service claims it is exempt from Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements because critical habitat designations impact only other federal agencies. But this claim is in error. While critical habitat designations do require federal agencies to manage critical habitat, the restrictions of the designations also directly affect small businesses, making designations subject to RFA requirements.

Ninth Circuit: Unelected bureaucrats can do whatever they want, no matter what the law or facts say. See Chevron.

In the 80s, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the Service to move otters to southern California on the condition that it implement protections for the surrounding fishery and the fishermen … ›

What constitutes a “subspecies” under the Endangered Species Act?

When the Service rejected a delisting petition for the coastal California gnatcatcher, it acknowledged that it was not going to define “subspecies,” the very term upon which the denial rests, even while acknowledging that the term enjoys no commonly accepted meaning among scientists. Thus, by not defining that key term, the Service effectively reserved to itself the right to use whatever definition of “subspecies” suits it best at any time. This arbitrary power prevents the regulated public from challenging any “subspecies” designation because the Service can always move the goal posts.

PLF sends dilatory Service notice of a lawsuit threequel

What does it take to get the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to follow the law? For the citizens of Bonner County, Idaho, and members of the Idaho State Snowmobile … ›

PLF petitions for rehearing in Utah prairie dog case

This morning, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc in People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—our challenge to the federal government’s constitutional … ›

PLF to testify at congressional hearing on how ESA burdens development

It is a busy week for PLF’s DC Center. Our Executive Director Todd Gaziano will be speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by Senator Lee (Utah) to announce the release … ›

The best way to protect the environment isn't always obvious

Our friend Brian Seasholes of the Reason Foundation has an article on DailyCaller.com on one of the oft overlooked environmental benefits of fracking: preserving open space as habitat for wildlife. … ›

New Endangered Species Act regulations will improve the statute's implementation

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its proposed regulations to reform the Endangered Species Act petition process. The regulation incorporates several important reforms and is a welcome sign … ›

Should unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have free rein to regulate whatever they please?

PLF argues “no,” in an amicus brief supporting four states, industry groups, and an Indian tribe in their challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) unlawful fracking regulation. It … ›

The Morning Docket

Stay up to date with the Morning Docket, a weekly highlight of PLF's best articles, videos, and podcasts.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Should Follow the Law

The Service claims it is exempt from Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements because critical habitat designations impact only other federal agencies. But this claim is in error. While critical habitat designations do require federal agencies to manage critical habitat, the restrictions of the designations also directly affect small businesses, making designations subject to RFA requirements.

Ninth Circuit: Unelected bureaucrats can do whatever they want, no matter what the law or facts say. See Chevron.

In the 80s, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the Service to move otters to southern California on the condition that it implement protections for the surrounding fishery and the fishermen … ›

What constitutes a “subspecies” under the Endangered Species Act?

When the Service rejected a delisting petition for the coastal California gnatcatcher, it acknowledged that it was not going to define “subspecies,” the very term upon which the denial rests, even while acknowledging that the term enjoys no commonly accepted meaning among scientists. Thus, by not defining that key term, the Service effectively reserved to itself the right to use whatever definition of “subspecies” suits it best at any time. This arbitrary power prevents the regulated public from challenging any “subspecies” designation because the Service can always move the goal posts.

PLF sends dilatory Service notice of a lawsuit threequel

What does it take to get the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to follow the law? For the citizens of Bonner County, Idaho, and members of the Idaho State Snowmobile … ›

PLF petitions for rehearing in Utah prairie dog case

This morning, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc in People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—our challenge to the federal government’s constitutional … ›

PLF to testify at congressional hearing on how ESA burdens development

It is a busy week for PLF’s DC Center. Our Executive Director Todd Gaziano will be speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by Senator Lee (Utah) to announce the release … ›

The best way to protect the environment isn't always obvious

Our friend Brian Seasholes of the Reason Foundation has an article on DailyCaller.com on one of the oft overlooked environmental benefits of fracking: preserving open space as habitat for wildlife. … ›

New Endangered Species Act regulations will improve the statute's implementation

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its proposed regulations to reform the Endangered Species Act petition process. The regulation incorporates several important reforms and is a welcome sign … ›

Should unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have free rein to regulate whatever they please?

PLF argues “no,” in an amicus brief supporting four states, industry groups, and an Indian tribe in their challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) unlawful fracking regulation. It … ›

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Should Follow the Law

The Service claims it is exempt from Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements because critical habitat designations impact only other federal agencies. But this claim is in error. While critical habitat designations do require federal agencies to manage critical habitat, the restrictions of the designations also directly affect small businesses, making designations subject to RFA requirements.

Ninth Circuit: Unelected bureaucrats can do whatever they want, no matter what the law or facts say. See Chevron.

In the 80s, Congress enacted a statute authorizing the Service to move otters to southern California on the condition that it implement protections for the surrounding fishery and the fishermen … ›

What constitutes a “subspecies” under the Endangered Species Act?

When the Service rejected a delisting petition for the coastal California gnatcatcher, it acknowledged that it was not going to define “subspecies,” the very term upon which the denial rests, even while acknowledging that the term enjoys no commonly accepted meaning among scientists. Thus, by not defining that key term, the Service effectively reserved to itself the right to use whatever definition of “subspecies” suits it best at any time. This arbitrary power prevents the regulated public from challenging any “subspecies” designation because the Service can always move the goal posts.

PLF sends dilatory Service notice of a lawsuit threequel

What does it take to get the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to follow the law? For the citizens of Bonner County, Idaho, and members of the Idaho State Snowmobile … ›

PLF petitions for rehearing in Utah prairie dog case

This morning, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc in People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service—our challenge to the federal government’s constitutional … ›

PLF to testify at congressional hearing on how ESA burdens development

It is a busy week for PLF’s DC Center. Our Executive Director Todd Gaziano will be speaking Wednesday at an event hosted by Senator Lee (Utah) to announce the release … ›

The best way to protect the environment isn't always obvious

Our friend Brian Seasholes of the Reason Foundation has an article on DailyCaller.com on one of the oft overlooked environmental benefits of fracking: preserving open space as habitat for wildlife. … ›

New Endangered Species Act regulations will improve the statute's implementation

This week, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized its proposed regulations to reform the Endangered Species Act petition process. The regulation incorporates several important reforms and is a welcome sign … ›

Should unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats have free rein to regulate whatever they please?

PLF argues “no,” in an amicus brief supporting four states, industry groups, and an Indian tribe in their challenge to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) unlawful fracking regulation. It … ›